Strong Confirmations of Fleischmann Pons ‘Cold Fusion’ Effect at EU Parliament

Daniele Passerini of 22Passi.blogspot.com has done a great service by providing excellent reporting and posting many pictures from the June 3 meeting at the EU Parliament in Brussels on the Fleischmann-Pons effect. Key academic, business and engineering figures from around the world were invited to discuss results of research into the effect announced by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in 1989 where it appeared that energy from a nuclear reaction could be produced in an laboratory setting.

It appears that Passerini took pictures of every slide in each presentation so although we may not have recordings of the talks we can get an idea of what they were discussing. There are some very interesting slides posted on his site. Here’s one for example in the presentation titled “Anomalous Heat Results from the Naval Research Lab and the University of Missouri“:

Anomalous heat slide

There is certainly some significant event taking place here, however if you look at the slide it took 10 hours for the effect to appear, and when it did it came in what looks like quite random bursts — something that seems to be a characteristic of the FPE.

One slide in Dr. Robert V. Duncan’s presentation about the work at the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance demonstrates the elusiveness of the Fleischmann-Pons effect:

FPE slide

Reproducibility and controllability are still big problems, then. Nevertheless, to have such an event held at the European Parliament shows that there is considerable interest in the nature of cold fusion, and perhaps this meeting will steer some EU funds towards research in this field. Meanwhile, it still seems to me that Andrea Rossi is well ahead of the field in harnessing LENR for practical application.

Here’s a list of the presenters at the meeting.

Robert Duncan, Director of Research, University of Missouri (USA)
Michael McKubre, SRI International (USA)
Graham Hubler, Director of the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (USA)
Stefano Concezzi, Vice President National Instruments (USA)
P.J. King, CEO ReResearch (Ireland))
Konrad Czerski, University of Szczecin (Poland), Technische University Berlin (Germany)
Vittorio Violante, University of Rome, ENEA
Andrea Aparo, University Rome Sapienza, Polytechnic of Milano, Ansaldo Energia
Enrico Paganini, ENEL Green Power
Antonio La Gatta, President, TSEM Engineering and Electronics
Giovanni Lelli, Commissario ENEA
Aldo Pizzuto, ENEA
Massimo Busuoli, ENEA EU – Liaison Office
Herbert Von Bose, Director, Industrial Technologies, European Commission
Amalia Sartori, President, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament

  • Van den Bogaert Joannes

    Please have a look at the articles “Belgian LANR Patents”, “LANR by Coulomb Explosion” and “Cold Fusion Catalyst”on the e-Cat Site . Nuclear fusion by changing magnetic field is described in Belgian patent BE904719 (see Espacenet European patent data base).

  • georgehants

    Just somebody who seems to care, a few more people willing to act may even improve things.
    Now could Cold Fusion help in this area. now let me think, daaaa.
    But of course we must check to see if he has any qualifications for his actions first.
    ——
    Irish Examiner
    Bono joins Damon’s toilet strike
    Thursday, June 06, 2013
    By Tom Prendeville
    In his latest campaign to make the world a better place, Bono has vowed to boycott toilets and bathroom facilities until everyone in the third world has access to clean drinking water and sanitation.
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bono-joins-damons-toilet-strike-233349.html

    • georgehants

      Just for interest (to me) I wear my uncut, un-styled hair down past my shoulders in protest of the many people just caring what they look like on the outside.
      A little more concern with what they look like on the inside my help the World.

      • Roger Bird

        george, I would probably avoid you if we met on the street. My primary concern when I walk down the street is MY safety and convenience. I and everyone else in the world have a perfect right for that to be our primary concern. Other people cannot be expected to read your character at 40 paces; it is self-centered to think otherwise. You are putting on others the burden of reading your aura, and I don’t if very many of them can. I may get pestered by a well-groomed person, but my odds are much better than with an unkempt person. I meet people every day who think that I am normal, and I am perfectly happy with that. It gives me an opportunity for giving them a little kindness and consideration. Little do they know that I am by far the strangest person that I know. I am a devotee of Meher Baba and I sit around all day promoting edgy things like LENR and raw milk, etc. etc. I get away with being a weirdo because I present myself in a way that doesn’t turn people off, and it makes it possible for me to do a little kindness for other people, all of whom are doing the very best that they are able.

      • Rockyspoon

        And I buzz my hair short every Sunday morning so I look clean and responsible all week.

        Short hair takes far less shampoo, eliminates all that long hair that gums up the sewer system, and takes less time tying/braiding it to keep it out of your eyes as a safety concern.

        People also respond better to me as a person since my short covering allows a more tanned appearance.

        Managing something usually gives better results than just letting it go. And I save the cost of a barber.

        • Roger Bird

          There is a balance in all of this. And of course people can use appearance to deceive. I sort of do that. If the conservative people in this town understood what a radical I am, they would be freaked out. But my radicalness includes the fact that I want to help them not freak out and to feel comfortable and for them to find inner peace.

          But to a large extent one’s appearance sends messages about one’s attitude toward life and toward others. Saying I don’t care what other people think must also include I don’t care about other people and what they experience. To not be selfishly concerned about whether other people accepts one is great. To not care how they feel and how comfortable they are is small. I try to be invisible; I want people to not feel that I have been there when I walk past.

    • Roger Bird

      A better world starts with the improvement in one’s character and attitude and state of consciousness. Other than that, the most that we can do for others is to be a friend and to be an example.

  • georgehants

    I find it psychologically interesting that when scientists on page are arguing about how many Megawatts fit into a cubic inch then there are many comments.
    When I bring up clear Evidence of the failures and irratinal thinking and philosophy of the scientific paradigm then the responses drop to the few able thinkers on page.
    This is not a good sign of the quality of their thinking or moral abilities.

    • Roger Bird

      Of course, it is 2:53 Mountain Daylight Time; that couldn’t have anything to do with it.

      I had similar thoughts. There is WAY too much worship of intellect and intellectually capable people and not enough admiration for intuition, compassion, social dexterity, imagination, honesty, responsibility, integrity, wisdom, caring, I could go on and on. It was quite late in life when I discovered that most of these science dudes that we were supposed to admire were not really very admirable people. “Thanks, Dr. Einstein, for the Theory of Evolution and all that and your most excellent platitudes, but please go back to your sensitivity training class.” And Einstein was by no means the worst.

      • georgehants

        Roger, I judge after a day or so not, not immediately.

        • Roger Bird

          I am not sure what you mean, but I know that slow thinking is usually the best, unless your profession is that of an American football quarterback. I usually check things out, check all of the factors and options, and then walk away from the problem and get involved with something else, like eat, sleep, play with the dogs, basically forget about the problem.

          Meher Baba said that mind speeded up is madness, mind working is normal man, mind slowed down is spiritual advancement, and mind stopped is Self-realization. I do not pretend to be spiritually advanced; I am not sure that I qualify as even a good person. But I know that slowing down the mind helps to make it work better. My wife is a shallow thinker. I guess it is part of my job description as a husband to help her think things through and more deeply. It is part of her job description to help me feel more deeply.

          Thoughts at 3:11 A.M. MDT, welcome to the world of insomnia. Good night.

          • georgehants

            Roger you said —-“Of course, it is 2:53 Mountain Daylight Time; that couldn’t have anything to do with it.”
            I take it you where implying, I was referring to not getting instant reply’s.
            My answer cleared that for you.
            —-
            We have had thousands of years to “think” about many of the problems that I am putting forward, the subject may change but they are all morally and intellectually the same.
            So yes, careful consideration is always advisable but spontaneity, creativity and trusting intuition can on many occasions lead to a fair result.
            If we are then later shown to be in error, it is for a balanced person not difficult to admit that and even apologise for any possible harm done.
            Learning is life, stagnation of thought is death.

    • Mop

      The philosophical stuff is simply somewhat off topic. Things like arguing about global warming is outright annoying. Then there’s linking to something about homeopathy today!

      About philosophical questions, I really enjoy trying to strip myself of my ego and personality while pondering answers, clearing my mind and thinking without language, trying to see what hunches about the various suggested answers I have, and looking at what emotions there are. That’s just too much work if it’s not needed for the main topic at hand.

      I’d rather hear something about LENR. If there’s something off topic, then please at least some joking in good nature and not lamentations.

      • georgehants

        Mop, perhaps you could take a moment of your time to comment on your feelings for the possible millions who have and are suffering because of the delay in Cold Fusion and other non-material subjects.
        Or is that in your estimation “annoying” and “off topic”, in which case I can leave you to get back to having a “joke” about the suffering involved.

        • Mop

          That’s exactly what I mean. There’s too much that’s not about LENR and not helping things.

          The awful lot of posts attacking the idea of man-made climate change are backwards. They are promoting to stick to burning carbon and investing efforts into that instead of pushing for Cold Fusion (or whatever the phenomenon in the e-cat actually is).

          There’s also a good amount of mocking of other ideas going on, which is making people look at that instead of at LENR.

          It’s possibly alienating. It should be about promoting and seducing someone to invest more of their time into thinking about LENR.

          • georgehants

            Mop, perhaps you could take a moment of your time to comment on your feelings for the possible millions who have and are suffering because of the delay in Cold Fusion and other non-material subjects.
            Or is that in your estimation “annoying” and “off topic”, in which case I can leave you to get back to having a “joke” about the suffering involved.

          • Rockyspoon

            More CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing.

            First, there’s no actual data showing CO2 acts as a “blanket”–indeed, a study of over 100 million datasets from the NCDC shows that the decade of the 1950’s and the decade starting in 2000 showed NO difference in temperature decline or boost as the sun went down; no difference in “blanket” effect; ergo, no difference even though CO2 had increased ~17% during that time.

            You understand the concept of fugacity, right? CO2 goes up, water vapor (which is the main GHG) goes down. Temperatures don’t track CO2–it’s been over 16 years without any statistically significant change in temperature by thermometer, 23 years by satellite measurements!

            So no correlation, and they’re finding all sorts of interesting aspects about climate that could explain the slight changes (we don’t even know what caused the Little Ice Age but we should all be thankful that we’re not in one now). But CO2 is not one of the drivers; it FOLLOWS temperature changes.

            The benefits of CO2?: trees grow 30% faster now than they did 50 years ago and about 15% of agricultural foodstuf increases are attributed to more CO2.

            Have you had a satisfying meal lately? Have you had enough to eat? Thank CO2. Besides, you use transportation, don’t you? Fossil-fuel driven. And your computer? Most of the electricity comes from fossil fuels. CO2 is a side-benefit.

            • Roger Bird

              Rockyspoon, so you don’t believe in LENR and/or LENR+?

    • Stefan

      George,

      Personally I’m a science and computer freak, and tend to want to discuss technical stuff and leave everything else out because i’m not comfortable to do that. But I can say the following.

      1. I care for my two children and went down in time to be able to be with them and also have time to do some hobbies like participating here,

      2. I’m very intuitive in my work for what I mostly do and it works great. But usually the activity goes in 2 phases. The first phase is creative and has nothing to do with thinking logically, its more using stomach and feelings to direct the flow. Then I put on my hat of education and analyze what I’ve got. I would guess that one would say that it takes two to dance.

      3. I think that what we see with LENR is an effect of powerful people wanting, by some reason, downplay LENR. In principle, the scientific methodology have been applied we would conduct much more of this kind of research today.

      4. Researchers don’t read papers carefully, and are way to biased and get too blocked to be intelligent. I am a person that like slow motion thinking, I tend to be very skeptical to what fast thinkers express in a conversation, I believe that our society to put a glory favoring fast movers and fast thinkers is a huge mistake.

      5. There might be one flaw in the application of scientific methods as I see it and that is that we treat evidences based on the tradition of methodology more then actually consider a actual cost models and base the discussion on that.

      6. Also, there is a continuing conflict with people doing statistical evidence research and people doing research by careful study of the individual. The huge mistake here is to assume a conflict, again it takes two to dance.

      • georgehants

        Stefan, thank you, very honest and important.
        My only comment would be that it clearly is irrelevant to it’s judgement, if as you say —-
        “I tend to be very skeptical to what fast thinkers express in a conversation.” —-
        If the response is fast or slow the only criteria is Truth, if slow, steady thinking or fast intuitive thinking leads to that only important principle in Science or Life then, job done.

        • Stefan

          You are right, any fast thought’s that comes out and are allowed to be reviewed by slow minds can be very valuable.

      • Warthog

        “The first phase is creative and has nothing to do with thinking logically, its more using stomach and feelings to direct the flow.”

        It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover…..Einstein

  • Grek

    Why do the EU people not mention Rossi? Shameful. Nothing good will come from that meeting. They are probably busy planning how to tax the “F&P effect”.

    • georgehants

      One may consider that politicians receive their information from science, therefore it is not reasonable to blame them for their actions on Cold Fusion at present.
      Only science I think is to blame for the current situation.

      • Roger Bird

        There has been no big change with the social, moral, and emotional retardation of science people. Newton was a great example; he was a vindictive person without charity, and the Royal Society was so socially retarded that they thought it was a great idea to put the smartest guy in charge even though he was vindictive and malicious. No big change there. The big change has been that government funding is everywhere and in everything and has messed things up even more than before.

        • Grek

          Yes. The problem with science is that uninformed people in government decides who should be allowed to perform science, and how much money they should get. An example of bad and expensive science is the BRAIN initiative that Makram precides over. This project is set to guzzle billions of euros the comming years and will take funding from other promising neuro science (such as my own privately funded project) while in the end will not be able to deliver on its overhyped promise.

          I belive that science should not be funded at all from government, but privately.

          For a better society I suggest reading “Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand. I don’t agree with all of her views, but with most.

          • AlainCo

            You raise the good point, and should raise it even higher.

            Your point is that government is not competent to choose what is probably productive in research.

            Nassim Nicholas Taleb position is that NOBODY IS COMPETENT to make forecast, because any blackswan can change the rule. and no intelligence can anticipate it, because there is no data to forecast the blackswan. FORGET IT.

            What he propose as solution is just to dare to test many things, provided they are cheap, and provided they don’t destroy too much if they fail. Good “options”.
            This is the cheap trial and error non-methodology.
            This is the opposite of science plannification! Planification only lead to broken plan, and missed luck.
            This is the opposite of good science fighting against bad science! What is bad is not trying, it is just maintaining it is try while it does not work.
            This is the opposite of expensive huge concentrated BIG SCIENCE.

            taleb clearly support garage inventors, with much evidence, against academic research, theories, big-science.

            You will notice that all those evil way are standard and normative today. According to the rules of today, we are only allowed to use the bad way, and the good way is forbidden…
            The exception are small businesses, startup, and irrational sponsor.

            In less than 1 year I read 2 books that explain how in france, europe, western world, we absolutely do the opposite of what we should :
            Antifragile and The next convergence.
            Those two books share many common ideas.

            • Grek

              Interesting. I agree with you 100%

  • Sven Brus

    The Storm “Andrea” is soon hitting the American East coast.
    It will after intensify in strength as is movies in over the U.S

  • georgehants

    From Mr. Rossi’s page.
    A scientist starts to develop an open-mind.
    —–
    Koen Vandewalle
    June 5th, 2013 at 3:38 PM
    I start to believe that the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with relativity and things that go fast. There must be some rule we overlooked.

  • georgehants

    Looking at Jim’s report below on homeopathy, I really feel, but others may disagree that these “other” subjects should be legitimately covered on these pages, as we should all care (having seen the corrupt and incompetent delay in Cold Fusion for 24 years, causing untold suffering to Humanity) to correct the Damage being done continually and daily by Science.
    I believe that this should be our main concern while we wait for Mr. Rossi (and others) to progress with his planed campaign of gradual disclosure.
    If we are to help stop the same crimes of Cold Fusion then we must be prepared to look at other clear areas where the religious denials of science against indisputable clear Evidence is Destroying the meaning of the word SCIENCE and all it should stand for.

  • georgehants

    Are there any scientists on page that do not feel sickened to know that they belong to this corrupt pathetic organisation that is happy even in death to have it’s “premier” journals distorting the Truth for, well you tell me what the reasons are.
    I wonder home many “scientists” on page will reply to my post or just as usual keep quite while the scientific crimes continue.
    ——
    Cold Fusion Now.
    Letter to Nature on Martin Fleischmann released from copyright.
    On August 3, 2012 Dr. Martin Fleischmann, co-discoverer of cold fusion, passed away in his home after a long illness.
    Obituaries produced by mainstream news outlets were nothing more than gross distortions of career that exemplified intellectual honesty and integrity. The science journal Nature was but one publication that mischaracterized Fleischmann’s work where author Phillip Ball wrote of cold fusion as a “pathological science”, and the “blot” it left on Fleischmann’s career.
    Fortunately, Dr. Brian Josephson, a Cambridge University professor and Nobel laureate, responded to Nature’s portrayal. Due to copyright, we were unable to publish Josephson’s letter, though he published a summary on his website. Six months has now passed, and the copyright is freed.

    • georgehants

      Link for above.
      http://coldfusionnow.org/letter-to-nature-on-martin-fleischmann-released-from-copyright/
      It would be appropriate maybe to have a new topic page on this travesty.
      What do people think of our science friends behaviour.

      • Roger Bird

        I refuse to get my dander or blood pressure up. Everyone eventually gets exactly what they deserve, good and bad.

        • georgehants

          Roger as the scientific Evidence strongly at present supports reincarnation, you may be correct, but allowing that we are just here the once. do you not think that we all should try and ensure that every individual has the chance to “enjoy their lives” as best as possible, now in this life.

          • Roger Bird

            Of course, since it is “Myself” that I am dealing with, I want very much to help “others”.

  • Stefan
  • Roger Bird

    As predicted, 110 years late: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/05/connecticut-senate-passes-bill-writing-wright-brothers-out-history/

    The fact that very, very few people ever heard of Gustave Whitehead and he had exactly ZERO influence on anyone regarding flight didn’t bother the Connecticut Legislature.

  • Jim

    Way OT, except for the anthropology of science skepticism (or the giddy pleasure of throwing matches on gasoline):

    They almost killed off the following technology too, but it’s apparently doing fine, and with absolutely no, zero, nada scientific theory to support it…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714686?utm_source=June2013Cough-Menop-Plants&utm_campaign=2013JuneCoughMeno&utm_medium=email

    • Roger Bird

      And as long as science stubbornly insists upon being materialistic, there never will be a scientific explanation for homeopathy. But it worked great for my family. I have two wonderful children because we did not do a hysterectomy for endometriosis that the dumb-ass MD wanted to do.

    • Roger Bird

      I read the abstract. As far as I can see, this study did more than prove that homeopathy can work with coughs. It disproved, in a severely scientific way, that materialism is bunk.

    • AB

      That reminds me of the nonlinear relationship between dose and effect observed in studies about chemicals affecting organisms.

      In some chemicals the effect is not proportional to the dose but follows a complex curve. In some of these curves, increased effects can be seen at lower doses.

      See fig. 3 here: http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/03/14/er.2011-1050.full.pdf

  • GreenWin

    Interesting to see SKINR’s approach to two distinct cold fusion phenomena:

    Class 1 More typical nuclear applications for medicine, sensors, analysis

    Class 2 Anomalous HEAT – energy production, process heat,

    Dr. Duncan includes Solid State Fusion in Class 1 (piezoelectric);
    and deuterium loaded metals (Ti, U238, Pd) and positron production during thunderstorms. He does not mention gas loaded metals or Ni specifically.

    This slide tends to spell out the current state of denial in mainstream science, politics, media, and the ivory towers:

    “The flying machine that will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians, and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years.” The New York Times, 1903.

    • Roger Bird

      As much as I despise the New York Slimes, if you include working man-hours, then they weren’t far off. I can’t guess how many people worked on the airplane, which would be an increasing number, but I would imagine that they passed the 1 million man-hours around 1933.

    • Sanjeev

      I like the term Solid State Fusion. Much better than cold fusion, as its no more cold at steel melting temperatures.

      • AlainCo

        not bad…

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    I’m sure the greenies will find fault in the greening of the deserts. No doubt, it’ll upset the mating cycle of the horned toad.

    Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

    31 May 2013
    AGU Release No. 13-24

    WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

    Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

    The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

    “Lots of papers have shown an average increase in vegetation across the globe, and there is a lot of speculation about what’s causing that,” said Donohue of CSIRO’s Land and Water research division, who is lead author of the new study. “Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”

    He and his colleagues present their findings in an article that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.

    But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so. “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.

    To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.

    In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”

    “The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”

    This study was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia. http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml

  • buffalo

    well the fact that its only deutrium and not hydrogen produces such anomalies in palladium is a flashing red light to take more serious notice indeed.

  • Roger Bird

    If you travel to the wilds of central New Guinea, you will find people there that have opinions. They may have opinions about the Cargo Cult or about their neighbors or about why the Sun rises in the East. It is the nature of people to have opinions. Whether their opinions matter and are informed is an entirely different matter. If you take that New Guinea fellow on a plane trip (and that is all), his opinion about the Cargo Cult will be greatly improved and enhanced. He will still not have a very smart opinion about his neighbors or why the Sun rises in the East. Just because people can type and find their way here does not mean that their opinions count for much.

  • Roger Bird

    AGW is still debatable. When (not if) LENR+ comes on line, if CO2 levels continue to rise, this will prove that man made carbon dioxide was always a trivial component of the atmosphere and AGW will be disproven. This is, for me, the most likely scenario. If CO2 levels plateau or start to fall, then either (but not both) of two things may happen. (1) If the temperatures start to fall, this will prove AGW but such proof will be moot, although it will be an embarrassment for those who have opposed AGW. (2) If the temperatures continue to rise, this will disprove AGW. This will of course be moot, but it will be an embarrassment for AGW advocates.

    • lenrdawn

      The number of scientists actually doubting that the rise in CO2 concentration is man-made is negligible. The debate isn’t even about whether more CO2 should lead to higher temperatures. Practically everybody agrees that it absolutely has to. The debate is mostly about the “how much”. Prominent skeptics like Lindzen or Spencer (interestingly enough they’re labeled “patho-skeptics” on blogs like realclimate) say it shouldn’t be much more than the immediate radiative effect, which leads to about 1.2-1.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. The more alarmist crowd (Hansen, Rahmstorf etc.) say the effect is amplified by positive feedbacks and set the long-term equilibrium at something between 3 and 6 degrees. All agree that the climate is dominated in the short run (something on the order of 30 years) by natural variability. So nobody doubts that a wide ranging substitution of fossil fuels with something that doesn’t emit CO2 will do both: lower CO2 concentrations and temperature trends over several decades. Only the magnitude of the reaction in, say, 100 years could prove one side or the other right or wrong.

      • kasom

        if you heat ocean water it starts to emitt CO2, it is a question of egg or chick.

        AGW is a real big interest of the industry, politicians and scientist who love to visit several meetings in 5 star hotels around the world. AGW is a vomi## type of theme for me…..

      • Roger Bird

        But it is all moot. I guess we will have to find something else to argue about.

      • psi

        I don’t think your formula “the number doubting….” is at *all* accurate. A great deal of statistical mischief has gone into promoting the illusion of unanimity where little exists. It depends who you ask. If you ask “climate scientists,” who are likely to live in GIGO bubbles, they will assure you that AGW is real. If you ask geologists, or statisticians who have examined the way the “climate scientists” manipulate data to force conclusions, many will laugh at the proposition. They know perfectly well that our knowledge of the world’s climate systems is far less advanced than our knowledge of other domains of physics, including what is now called LENR. The bottom line is the that the latter appears to be real, and for all kinds of reasons not necessarily including climate alarmism, should be fast-tracked as an energy source. C02 is food for plants. I know that view may be unpopular, but it is also happens to be very sound science, unlike much of what we are being told about it.

        • lenrdawn

          Read what I’ve said before quoting the convenient part for your argument and jumping on it, please. I wrote “The number of scientists actually doubting that the rise in CO2 concentration is man-made is negligible.”

          Do you know more than one? I don’t. When it comes to what that rise in CO2 concentration means, it is a very different picture, of course (and I think I pointed that out clearly enough).

          • Roger Bird

            The global warming debate doesn’t matter anymore, unless (generic) you like to get angry and exercise your sarcasm and prove how smart you are, or are insecure about (generic) your identity and like establishing it with brilliant intellectual presentations.

        • Omega Z

          psi

          Recently read 2 reports.

          One -Surprise- the greening of the planet. as CO2 has risen plants have went into overdrive. Growing larger crops, and more topographical covering. Portions of deserts are starting to green.

          They encourage more research on this.
          Well’ Duh. All they had to do was ask people with green house operations. Many of them increase the CO2 levels to 1000ppm for enhanced plant growth & production.

          The 2nd article shows plants taking in 2/3rds of the additional CO2 increase. This actually fits with the 1st article.

          The surprise in this 2nd article was that with higher CO2 levels, Plants drastically reduce water uptake/needs.
          “Plants perspire in order to take in CO2 & the lower the CO2 levels the more they perspire.”

          So in essence, with higher CO2 levels, less water vapor is emitted into the atmosphere.
          For those who aren’t aware, water vapor is a larger so-called GW component then CO2 & Methane combined.

          It appears Nature will find it’s own balance regardless what humans do. I find human arrogance far more threatening then Gw or whatever else comes about. In fact I find this arrogance part of the problem dealing with LENR.

          • Roger Bird

            This is like someone proving scientifically that juicing raw, organic veggies and fruit is good for your health. I think that most people know that more CO2 means more plant growth and that plants will be in a big hurry to eat up (sequester) this “extra” CO2. There is no rocket science here. And it is nice to see that some left-brain boffins have proven it. But many AGW advocates don’t want to admit that they know this in their hearts.

            How do I know this? Because, besides Robin, many of you AGW advocates here are still worry about the climate. I knew that this would happen. The mind considers to be real what it is familiar with, and it LIKES what it is familiar with. Only heroes like Robin have been able to let go of this pointless argument.

            And I say yet again, it doesn’t matter. LENR is going to put an end of 99.9% of all CO2 emissions, and most of you know it.

      • Timar

        Nice summary. I’m always amazed of how most “believers” here seem to turn into tin foil hat-wearing pathoskeptics when it comes to the theory of man-made global warming. I educated myself much about it, and for me there is not the slightest bit of doubt left that there is man-made global warming, and that the most “alarmist” predictions unfortunately turn out to be the most realistic ones.

        Some argue that AGW would be some sort of scientific conspiracy, just like the LENR denial. That couldn’t be further from the truth. There is no anti-LENR conspiracy – but plain ignorance and denial. It is easy to deny such a novel and elusive phenomenon as LENR which doesn’t fit into the established paradigm.

        The theory of man-made global warming, on the other hand, builds on positive knowledge, vast amount of data. and is involves the expertise of thousands of scientists from many disciplines and from all around the world. To assume that this theory is “made up” by what would be the most conspiracy in all history is so utterly irrational, that I’m frequently speechless that so many otherwise intelligent people here frequently suggest it.

        • Roger Bird

          I doubt AGW, therefore I am true to myself. (:->) But it is all moot, now, thanks to LENR+. And, really, I don’t want to find something else to argue about. I am sick and tired of arguing. We are going to have enough arguments to deal with concerning LENR+.

        • GreenWin

          Timar, educate yourself about Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia’s (& De Ninno) study at ENEA confirming the presence of He4 in cold fusion experiments. He4 is widely believed to appear as a byproduct of fusion. The paper, “Report 41” was submitted to 41 different “science journals,” – ALL rejected the paper and Rubbia suddenly went mute.

          Well documented on RIA Italian TV. And curiously from the only mainstream press supporting LENR:

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

        • khawk

          Yup – its warmed before. Its cooled before. It will warm and cool again. Grapes for the Nords of Greenland before they got run off by the icepack. The original Northwest Passage got its name somehow back in the day of sail power. How did Greenland get its name in the first place? Looks like another cooling period ahead based on the sun cycle. Look up Maunder Minimum next time you get a chance.

          • Roger Bird

            Maunder Minimum and Holocene Maximum, my two favorite “imum”s.

            • khawk

              I personally think that we’re going to need a blankie for about the next 30 to 50 years. That said, most everyone wants to be good stewards of planet earth and hoping that the E-Cat is an enabler in that regard.

        • Warthog

          Nobody denies the existence of “some” man-made global warming. If you look closely, you will find that the purported science of the total effect of AGW is completely based on pure physics and totally ignores the effects of the biosphere (see Freeman Dyson). Yet virtually daily, some “biospheric” phenomenon turns out to influence it.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I don’t doubt man’s contribution to increased CO2, but I do doubt man’s effects are greatly affecting our climate cycles. Furthermore, I always thought CO2 was a good thing. The libs aren’t happy unless they’re demonizing something or someone. Character assassination is their game and leeching tax money. Well, that’s not true of all of them. A goodly portion are blindly herded by their masters.

      • Timar

        OK, so according to your explanation I’m probably a believer in the theory of global warming because I’m a liberal. Interesting. Actually I’d rather consider myself a socialist but I guess in your opinion that may be even worse. However, as a European, I’m probably something entirely different from what you think I am.

        I’m always amazed about the cultural divide between Europe and the US. Nobody in Europe doubts man-made global warming, except for some extremists. Nobody in Europe (not even any extremists I can think of) would ever think that health care or gun bans could pose a threat to their freedom. Probably that’s why even most conservative Europeans feel alienated the US Republicans – every time when there are elections in the US, in polls asking which candidate e.g. French or German people would vote for, the Democrat gets at least 80%.

        • Roger Bird

          Timar, we still love you.

          The more homogeneous a society, the better socialism works. The USA is not a homogeneous society. We barely qualify as a society. Every European nation is homogeneous. This is becoming less so as you’all let other people into your countries, especially Muslims who are very dedicated and determined not to assimilate.

          • Timar

            That’s an interesting point you make, Roger.

            Probably the American’s peculiar and for Europeans often inconceivable notion of liberty has to be understood against the background of their heterogeneity. It is this very notion which gives the nation of the US a common identity in all its diversity – the story of the constant struggle for freedom, beginning with the settlers, who escaped oppression in Europe, up to the declaration of independence, abolishment of slavery and the more recent history. Although the French have their revolution too, as well as other European countries, the concept of liberty is far from having such a crucial role for the people’s identity here, so that we don’t perceive socialist concepts as a threat to our identity the way they are often perceived in the US.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Also the political terminology seems to differ a lot. In Finland, the term “liberal” is not used so much nowadays (we had a small Liberal Party at one point in history), but when it is used, it usually means a right-wing person, one who believes in free/liberal market economy. And in Russia there is the peculiar “liberal democratic party”, led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, which from the Finnish point of view would be neither liberal nor democratic, in any definition of the words. End of political excursion mode.

        • fortyniner

          “Nobody in Europe doubts man-made global warming, except for some extremists.”

          Complete propaganda nonsense Timar. ‘Belief’ in the distorted, alarmist visions dreamed up by the IPCC and the ‘data fixers’ of the U. of East Anglia is at an all time low among European citizens (as opposed to politicians) in Europe, as elsewhere.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

          The reason is simple: the real evidence simply fails to show any reasons for concern, and people increasingly realise that the whole fake issue is simply a tool for increasing taxation and bringing forward the agendas of various groups such as the nuclear power lobby. Please look at the facts rather than just repeating tired propaganda.

          http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/

          • Roger Bird

            It doesn’t matter anymore.

          • Timar

            “Facts” like this are an ideologically and not scientifically motivated amalgam of 10% real discrepancies, which are justifiably subject to interpretation, and 90% misrepresentations which have been disproven by scientists again and again.

            Disinformation campaigns like this are financed and supported by big oil and other industries who profit from devastating our environment. See:

            http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/10/a-new-kind-of-vicious-crime-against-humanity-the-fossil-fuel-industrys-disinformation-campaign-on-cl.html

            It makes me incredibly sad to see how intelligent people are fooled and made paranoid by the constant brainwashing and propaganda spread by those powerful interest groups.

            • Fibb

              Timar, the conspiracy theory AGW denier nutters are too gullible and deluded. There is no point trying to un-brainwash them. I wish all you bozos would stop debating AGW here. I have enough to read without have to wade through all this BS. Frank can you please put up a thread for the off topic crap so these guys can be ignorant somewhere else? How about some rules about staying on topic. I thought this site was about LENR/Rossi?

              • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

                I am reluctant to try to stop all discussion of climate change because LENR has a direct bearing on the debate. But I don’t want this site to become a place to engage in lengthy debates about AGW. It’s clear that people have different opinions on the topic here, and that’s fine with me. If people are going to state their position, don’t do it over and over, and please don’t insult those who think differently. Let’s stay respectful.

                • Roger Bird

                  I insult all LENR+ believers who still debate and fret about AGW, no matter which side of the debate they are on. I insult anyone who puts anyone down because they have a different view on AGW.

                  I have LOVED this debate for the past 10 years or so, but IT’S OVER. It is merely a matter of a decade or so and this issue will be as dead in reality as it should be in our minds. Now, just get with your own mind and most debate here will cease.

            • fortyniner

              It makes me incredibly sad to see how intelligent people can be caught up by quasi-religious zealotry of the CO2 lie, to the point they are unable to even look at evidence that contradicts their fixed views.

              I am not bought and paid for by the oil lobby, nor are the massive majority of those who look at the facts and are convinced by them. At one time I even believed in AGW, but that time is long gone.

              • Roger Bird

                Many people “grow up”.

                People should count the rationalizations of when the data does not fit the theory with the solar theory and the CO2 theory. Rationalizations made the Holocene Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age disappear with the AGW folks.

                Hey, now you got me doing it. IT DOESN’T MATTER ANYMORE. We cling to our petty arguments like a drowning person clings to a life preserver.

      • Guga

        It is clear that the amounts of CO2 we are emitting are enormous, even on a global scale. And it is simple physics that CO2 can cause a green house effect. Actually, it should be necessary that those who doubt AGW prove their point, not the other way round.

        Anyway, this is a pretty dangerous experiment we are performing here on our earth, the only one we have. I´m not against change in general, but nobody knows in this case what the effects will be in the end. Maybe the earth will be an even better place on average once this process of warming is done? Or maybe we are not warming our world? But what if we are, and the effects will be bad?! There is a serious chance that what we are doing in terms of fossil fuel burning may have disastrous effects on a large part of earth population. Even if it will be nearly impossible to prove this before it happens, can we really take the risk? I don´t think so, because there will be no way back.

        • Roger Bird

          It is now moot. No one likes pollution, and LENR+ will take care of the CO2, whether it is a pollutant or a nutrient.

          • Timar

            That’s a misleading contrast. Of course CO2 is a nutrient, but it is a powerful greenhouse gas as well.

            I’m afraid that LENR+ will come too late for some catastrophic changes to occur. Considering the latencies of the climate system, we are just in the calm before the storm. Even if we reduced CO2 emission to zero the next day, it wouldn’t change the mess we have already caused.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Roger, I want to pass on my positive feedback for a moment.

      I first read this thread, a topic which i believe in strongly, but find an unexpectedly high number of people here do not, and upon reading, my dander was up.

      And what I wanted to say was how off topic it was, and how exhausting it was, what a buzzkil — but the thing is, the specific way you broach the subject is *exactly* the framework that most matters: LENR is a climate change game changer.

      I have a very detailed rebuttal, now going to the delete world, because you’re totally right: if LENR pans out, then the carbon issue is also out.

      Thanks.

      • Roger Bird

        Thank you, Robyn. I am find myself having difficulty letting go of the AGW raging debate too. My ego was having so much fun with it. But the fact is that it is not important anymore. However, pollution is still a problem and will always be for as long as human beings are on Earth. To me, the pollution problem is a responsibility problem, and the responsibility problem is a spiritual problem.

        I guess I should also let go of my need to have raging debates. (:->)

        • fortyniner

          IMHO the importance of the AGW issue is that (as perceived by many LENR enthusiasts here) it is a part of the same false reality that has resulted in the suppression of cold fusion for decades.

          In both cases fake claims and misinformation have become the established norm, driven by the desire of covert groups to forward agendas that have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

          In this sense, the topics have a great deal in common, and this may be why we jointly seem unable to let go of this particular bone. They are two sides of the same coin – manipulation of perception through propaganda (in this case of energy production) for political ends.

          • AlainCo

            the good point you make, is that the only absolute factual evidence on AGW, were published by CRU mail, confirmed as genuine by authors, yet claimed as innocent chat.

            we see inside, manipulation of data, bias, terrorism against scientific journal which allow dissenter expression, boss imposing their vision on subordinates, manipulation of communication, ban of dissenters, feeling of being aggressed by dissenters. There is also strong abuse of the “null hypothesis” to shut-up dissenters, manipulation of press. You also see abuse of theoretical arguments, while phenomenological data don’t match.
            The BBC climate board scandal is not so different showing how a group of climate lobbyist, climatologist, and environmentalists decided of BBC coverage of AGW. The opposite of what is assumed by laymen, more afraid of big oil.

            beside those mail we see vested interest as people who may lose their job if the theory fails, people who make business selling solution to the claimed problems (renewable, advisors, carbon quotas), and politician who follow the fashion and the budgets.

            The luck with AGW is that there was political ideology and vested interest that face those political. Not more honest, yet less funded.

            For now another point is that data don’t match the mainstream model. Temperature have stalled, so that som blame CFC, or lower sensitiviy… All Climate model are wrong today, and climate sensitivity to CO2 is recognized by mainstream climatologist as below 2, thus acceptable… as many moderate skeptics were saying since long.

            My position is moving often because the data are bad, but my position is simply that greenhouse effect exist, have moderate effect on temperature and climate, and that beside that the impact of climate on planet is much much exaggerated, because assuming that human and living forms are not able to move their butts faster that one meter per decade (or similar maladaptation). I have studied more the claim about impact of climate on many subjects, and it is clearly BS, BS to a point it is hard to imagine UNO may have funded it. Stern reports have been bashed by an economist, on the econometric part, as a manipulation to justify a policy, and not as an information to decide a policy.

            that all AGW is huge manipulation does not prevent it to hold some truth… we have no acceptable data, and people doubting LENR evidence should focus more on AGW proven trillion frauds and manipulation, that on LENR unfunded conspiracy.

            What Judith Curry advice, like Taleb, is to develop our capacity to react to unexpected climate events, and even to benefit from them.

            We as a civilisation should not bet our survival on disproven climate models, which even if they were not bad, will be broken by a blackswan (hopefully they are BS, thus less dangerous than “fragilistan” good models).
            We should however prepare our infrastructure to survive from anything big, not by resisting, but by breaking only partially, saving the essential (lifes), and rebuilding better and fast. It should be cheaper and with the saved money we could rebuild and innovate, instead of trying to resist to the unstoppable.
            Save the people, not the building. Save their future, not their past.

          • Timar

            I don’t think that both are part of the same reality or can be compared at all. To make up a bogus scientific theory is a completely different thing from simply ignoring experimental evidence which doesn’t fit into your paradigm. The latter requires no conspiracy but only ordinary ignorance and selective perception. Although there are many examples of bogus scientific data, those are always small efforts by overambitious scientific fraudsters which are quickly debunked (this scheme happens all the time in science, and that’s probably one of the reasons why Fleischmann and Pons were tragically vilified). The theory of global warming, however, involves thousands of scientists from many disciplines from around the world, massive amounts of data and many years of elaboration. To assume that all of this is a conspiracy or that all those scientists are deluded (again: it is all too easy to be ignorant about something, but to be positively deluded about a non-existing phenomenon is something entirely different) is so far away from reason that in my opinion it stands in line with other inane conspiracy theories such as chemtrails or the moon landing hoax.

            • AlainCo

              There is nothing really hidden.
              Even the manipulation have been leaked by an insider (data show evidence of internal leaks) who published the archive that the CRU was keeping in case of FOIA.

              manipulation of science, is either small frauds by ambitious, or thinsk like lysenko that match some ideology.

              today the post modernism, the mathusianism, the statism , pushed by some, added to nuclear energy, renewable, finance , interests, was enough. add to that sincere conviction and church effect…

              It is like lysenkism, or LLNT, or some economic theories… when it please lobbies, it cannot be criticised.

              it is public today that AGW does not match data, neither their model…
              Data are just rejected, corrected, and excuses are found.

  • artefact

    ecat.com is online again.
    I forgot how the old page looked like. Don’t know if something has changed..

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It came up to an intermediate stage first which looked as if they had had a system crash. Maybe they had to struggle a bit to get a backup restored. By quick look I also don’t see anything changed.

  • Methusela

    By the way, some may have heard that Celani has lost his funding.

    This is not true!

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-4/271-s-g-cells-preliminary-test-findings-for-run-2#comment-3093

    With regard to the rumours about Celani, I spoke to him last week and he spoke about receiving a significant boost in funding and today we spoke to him regarding the [loss of funding] “news” and he said it was wrong.

    • artefact

      Thanks Methusela

    • AB

      I’m glad to hear that Celani is still going strong.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    I believe that old 2 cycle chainsaws are a scam because I’ve never been able to start one. Electric chainsaws, on the other hand, are very real and start every time, assuming you have juice.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Human twins are another hoax. I’ve attempted replication thousands of times without success.

      • Roger Bird

        Iggy, you have got to be the funniest guy on the Internet. That bit above about twins hit a 9.1 on my laugh scale.

      • Roger Bird

        I have not been able to confirm two humans at once (akin to LENR+), but after a great deal of trying I was able to confirm one human one after the other (akin to LENR), separated by 6 years of a great deal of really great trying.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Possibly because your research assistant controlled the mains. Did you check beneath for hidden wires?

        • hempenearth

          I can confirm two humans at once. I’m told it saves alot of energy in the long run, but after 9 years I’m not so sure of that – they take vast amounts of energy from parents.

          • Roger Bird

            But they return a lot of love and delight, assuming that you raised them properly. Mine are amazing.

    • Bruce Fast

      Iggy, I got my 2 stroke chainsaw started today — honest!

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        But did you have disinterested 3rd party witness? Either for the chainsaw or the human twin attempt?

        • Roger Bird

          I have been a 3rd party witness many times, but I can assure you that I was not disinterested. I already believed in it and wanted it to happen, desperately wanted it to happen. As a matter of fact, my desperation grew and grew until it did happen.

      • artefact

        These chainsaws can not work. You probably had an earthquake that was shaking you (there are more earthquakes than one would think) and behind you was a dog snarling; dogs often do that.

        • Andrew Macleod

          No no no. He had laser beams hidden in the ceiling to help him get it started.

  • zvibenyosef

    It is quite striking to note the difference between results obtained by most researchers, and those of Andrea Rossi. There is no doubt they are all observing the production of anomalous heat. However Rossi has proved he can reliably reproduce practical amounts of anomalous heat on demand, every time. The other researchers, only successfully reproduce anomalous heat occasionally, in uncontrollable bursts. There is no doubt that Andrea Rossi has the magic sauce. The other researchers are all highly qualified scientists, who have spent decades on this problem. Whatever the secret Rossi has, it is worth $trillions.

  • atanguy

    The error of the psycho-septics (I prefer this term) is that they apply the scientific method mechanically – Reproducibility of the phenomena should be equal to 100% -. In the real world there is not such thing. For example when there is a storm it doesn’t produce necessary thunder and lightning. So should we conclude that thunder and lightning don’t exist? It’s the same with F&P cold fusion. Until we know exactly the parameters of the phenomena we won’t be able to reproduce it 100% of the time.This is not the prove that it doesn’t exist.

    • daniel maris

      Yes, I think it’s similar when science was struggling with the effects of oxygen in experiments back in the late 18th century.

      • khawk

        Not to mention X-Rays and the impact they had on numerous experiments that had to be reconsidered once their impact was understood and accepted.

      • Joe Shea

        I just heard today from a civil engineer about a guy he knew who went into a fire with an oxygen tank to rescue someone and ended up blowing up him and the other victim.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          I knew a guy that had a small business that refurbished and re-certified fire extinguishers. While he was pressurizing one, it exploded and took his head off.

  • Stefan

    Let’s say that you want to disprove LENR after seeing the result of the brave folks above, what do you need to do. Well,

    H0: there is no effect
    H1: there is an effect at 1 out of 20 chance.

    Then you would perform N experments, varying the specimen in the
    allowed range for this effect to appear. Represent the number of successes with X.

    Then consider the Effect proved at level 0.05 if e.g.
    P(X|H0) < 0.05

    And if H1 is true we would like the test to Disprove H0 at a chance of
    say 0.95.

    We will consider the effect is there if we find it e.g. If we find it
    P(X|H0) == 0 and H0 is statistically disproved at any level.

    But given H1 the number of successes is Binomial(1/20,N) with X = 0
    with probability pH1 = (1 – 1/20) ** N, select N so pH1 = 0.05. E.g.
    N = 58 would be fine.

    Considering the high level of proof these presentation indicates (I'm sure there will be proper reports available soon). The proof should be on the debunker, and he needs to presents a well done test performed around 50 times to indicate a good disproof. I doubt that this has been done. Each experiment should take about 2 weeks and if it is one person doing this we talk of around 2 years of experimentation.

    Cheers!

    • Job001

      The debunkers would have to be independent for each of the 58 tests and honest scientists not trying to fail. It’s good to see decent statistics, science, and null hypothesis understanding!

    • lenrdawn

      “The proof should be on the debunker”

      Doesn’t work like that. Never will.

      • Barry

        Does in court.

      • AB

        The opinion of critic who cannot offer a technically valid rebuttal is irrelevant. There are a lot of negative but ultimately irrelevant voices out there.

      • Stefan

        Hi,

        Now the test was setup correctly, The discussion should be about the power e.g. I used the probability 0.05 for keeping H0, given H1 is true. But how do we select the ‘0.05’, well I think it’s reasonable to put it at that level giving the evidences for a LENR effect. The theory of choosing the power usually implies some kind of cost analysis if you contemplating the cost of missing LENR although it’s real compared to disproving H0 although it is true and factor in the probabilities given the evidences shown in the reports shown in EU I don’t find that value especially low, on the contrary.

        • buffalo

          your probability statistics falls away when we see that it only happens with D2 and never with H2 in this case.

      • Jim

        “Never will”….

        repeating rhetorical manipulator

        • lenrdawn

          Oh come on. The burden of proof is never on the “debunker”. Got a claim? Prove it. That’s how it works (and the only way it can possibly work).

          • AB

            In the pathoskeptic world, the debunkers are free to make any claims about fraud, incompetence or validity of research they wish without ever having to back them up.

            In the real world, a criticism of high level proof consists of a valid technical rebuttal. Anything else is just noise.

            • lenrdawn

              “In the pathoskeptic world, the debunkers are free to make any claims about fraud, incompetence or validity of research they wish without ever having to back them up.”

              Yes. That’s how it is. The “debunkers” simply making claims of fraud are doing just that – making a claim. As long as they don’t provide evidence there is no consequence to anybody. It is, as you say, just noise. Would anybody ever produce evidence good enough, somebody will sue and somebody else will eventually go to jail. But that doesn’t change anything about the burden of proof for the original claim lying on the shoulders of whoever made the claim in the first place.

              • AB

                But that doesn’t change anything about the burden of proof for the original claim lying on the shoulders of whoever made the claim in the first place.

                I never contested that. By any rational standard, the reality of LENRs has been proven.

                • khawk

                  Some of the PS folks seem to be just pure haters who appear to be doing denigration for sport. Cude just got banished from Vortex after being cornered. Its always been easier to be a teardown artist than a net positive contributor. The facts appear to be winning though – press on mates!

                • lenrdawn

                  Who has proven it and when? Which experiment out there is repeatable enough to justify such a statement? Which really has been replicated often enough? Who even CLAIMS it has been proven – not on a blog, mind you, I mean which scientist actually claims having proven LENR?

                • GreenWin

                  Do your own homework dawn. Start with this story and the scientists on the panel.

                  Further, IF Rossi fraud claimants have no hard evidence of E-Cat fraud – they should be banned. IMO

          • Stefan

            Note that I put H0, as “LENR is not true”, This is meeting “the proof is on LENR”

            Now anybody doing only one test, and don’t find the effect is clearly out of the blue with regard to stating that LENR is not real.

            So,

            The argument is what the power should be, and only about the power, any debunker that doesn’t provide a reason for selecting a certain power is not professional and should be consider a fringe scientist. What do you think is a reasonable level?

          • Jim

            @lenrdawn

            “Oh come on”

            “I mean which scientist actually claims having proven LENR?”

            repeating rhetorical manipulator

            • AB

              “I mean which scientist actually claims having proven LENR?”

              The willful blindness is astounding. Yet another pathoskeptic who thinks he is entitled to an opinion without informing himself on the subject first.

              Unfortunately at this point the usual response is a twisted misinterpretation of “the burden of proof is on the person making the claim”, which the pathoskeptics interpret as meaning that they are to be spoonfed information.

              • lenrdawn

                So you don’t know of any scientist who has claimed proof. That is because most of them know what that means.

                • Warthog

                  Dozens, actually. Go to the LENR-CANR.com bibliography and read the list of authors of papers there. Or borrow or buy Charles Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat”, which lists the critical experiments and their replications. Or Edmund Storms college text which does the same, but more thoroughly and more recently.

                • Barry

                  Lenrdawn, Peter Hagelstein has claimed proof with Mitchell Swarzt’s NANOR. As Robert Duncan would say “Look at the evidence.” The problem in the repeatable science, is not in a result, but in getting the same result (COPs of the same value). To claim the phenomenon of LENR is not proven is pathological science.

              • fortyniner

                As you said, AB, just noise.

                An attempt to dilute and divert the discussion and to muddy the water generally. This poster pretty much runs the gamut of standard disinfo tactics as summarised at http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/. In particular I would judge, 9, 13-15, 17, 19 and 20.

                • AB

                  That list is an amazingly accurate account of the behavior of maryyugo et. al.

                • Roger Bird

                  I think that I am ready to become a politician now.

                • GreenWin

                  Thanks fortyniner. Dead on accurate.

    • AB

      One aspect that needs to be clarified is whether the 1 in 20 chance refers to the number of experiments on the same palladium sample, or the number of palladium samples.

      I’ve often read that some samples simply show no effect ever.

      • Stefan

        I assumed 1 independent test for each sample, I could be wrong though. Given the fact that they do want to find out what underlying effects in the choice of specimen is causing the uncertainty, and the scarce resources they have I would go for that they basically uses one sample per experiment. i could be wrong.

        • lenrdawn

          You may want to include an equal number of blind tests using the exact same setup but altered in a way theoretically exuding an effect in order to minimize the possibility of false positives messing up the statistics. Even that won’t exclude structural errors indicating success where there is none. The MFMP people can probably write entire novels about that by now (admittedly they haven’t run more than five or six experiments comparable enough to qualify for what you have in mind).

          • Stefan

            Good point!

        • Joe Shea

          The absence of Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz, as well as Andrea Rossi, from the EU discussions is highly suspect. Also missing were Brillouin and Defkalion, which both seem to make plausible claims. It’s like talking about medieval playwrights without mentioning Shakespeare.

          • Roger Bird

            Brillouin was there in the person of Dr. Mike McKubre. He is involved with both SRI International and Brillouin.

    • LCD

      might be a good proposal to submit to DOE or NSF so it can be funded, no?

    • zvibenyosef

      Skeptics and debunkers are far too lazy to do any hard work, or actual experimentation. They just want to stand on the sidelines and snipe at the real scientists. Talk is cheap and debunkers are even cheaper still. We should consider their criticisms with the same importance as the sound of dogs, barking faintly in the distance.

  • lenrdawn

    Hubler’s slides are labeled June 3 2012??

  • LCD

    I think it was said before, Krivit has some info on it, (although you have to question everything he puts out now), but the meeting at the Parliament Building has nothing to do with an endorsement of the EU parliament.

    Is there something to indicate the contrary?

    • lenrdawn

      I think it is obvious that this isn’t an official EU event but simply being held in a EU building.

      • Marcf Irvin

        What! You can’t get that many names on a roster in a setting of any kind and down play the significance. Come on.

      • Jim

        “I think is it obvious”…

        repeating rhetorical manipulator

    • Robyn Wyrick

      I don’t know about “endorsement” but the list of presenters did include

      “Herbert Von Bose, Director, Industrial Technologies, European Commission”

      And

      “Amalia Sartori, President, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament”

      So, while not indicating an EU Parliament “endorsement” it does show an affiliation. Hard to know what that will mean ultimately.

      • AlainCo

        As a corporate I would say that a pubic endorsement is not to be expected from EU.

        what is to be expected is that the meeting is cancelled.
        that it is not cancelled mean some form of shyness, that mean that EU “controllers” (at low level) prefer not to raise opposition, afraid of a possible backdraft.

        it seems that last year, the conference of srivastava in La Sapienza was cancelled… some buzz accuse the university administration…
        It true, and if different that year, it is information…

        Big organization member are very coward (risk is only if making error , or success, but alone), and have a tendency to follow the consensus, and avoid the controversy.
        Normally is LENr is assumed 90% “bad-science”, they don’t look at the evidence and cancel the event.
        When it start to be “60/40” or “40/60” they simply … close their eyes, refuse to communicate, and make hasty “no comment” if questioned, or just pretend they are trekking in the rocky mountains and cannot answer.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    For the new fire, Rossi’s reactor looks like a commercial oil heater compared to other labourers who are sometimes succeeding to ignite wood by friction. “There are probably less than 500 people in the United States who can consistently start a fire with a hand drill”, according to “The micacle of fire-by-friction”, http://www.primitiveways.com/fire_Baugh.html.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve done that Once. Just to prove I could & a just in case sometime in life.

      That said:
      If you count the times I tried before succeeding, It is not possible. It was just a fluke. An anomaly. It can not be readily or reliably reproduced.
      Therefore it should be considered Junk Science. 🙂

      Actually I have found a near fool proof way of starting a fire rubbing 2 sticks together.

      Providing those 2 sticks are Farmers Matches.

  • AlainCo

    some posted those slides.
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?363-Brussel-EU-Conference-on-emerging-materials&p=5044&viewfull=1#post5044

    I could not read the slides myself because of network config, so you opinion welcome, and if someone can find where they come from ?

    • Roger Bird

      Excellent presentation, AlainCo.

  • R101

    This, I believe, should be enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LENR or whatever it’s called this year is truly real!

    • AlainCo

      don’t hope any change, it is very long time since there are huge evidences… Hans Gerischer found enough to change opinion in 91… of course it is probably because he was electrochemist (one of the best of his time), and thus knowed what could be fooled or not in calorimetry.

      • GreenWin

        One can never underestimate the ignorance of human scientists.

    • Roger Bird

      A paradigm shift is like a great building. Just because you have a lot of nice bricks (scientific evidence) does not mean that the building is complete. Scientific evidence means a lot for people like us. What someone says about scientific evidence means a lot for other people. If the people saying stuff about the scientific evidence are biased by theory or money, then the people impressed by what someone says about the evidence are going to get a false picture. Not everyone has the time to study all of the evidence. God knows I skip over stuff presented here and elsewhere. Not everyone can understand the scientific evidence, another reason that I might skip over what is presented here and elsewhere. There any many reasons why not everyone can be impressed by the scientific evidence. We need to tell people. Tell your friends and family. Find a boffin (geek) among your friends and family to look at the evidence. Tell them once they become believers to become LENR PR crusaders also. (AlainCO, I reread that about 4 times and made corrections.)

  • Stefan

    Check out Vittorio Violante’s slides, Especially

    http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/06/new-advancements-on-fleischmann-pons_8754.html

    So a specimen at ENEA had the effect at SRI and vice verse of with around 50% reproducability. If this this was a double blind test, then it is really strong evidence, (one out of 7 down to one out of 20 are only supposed to have the effect according to the slides above)

    They should really have a researcher well versed in statistics in the team, when they are setting up and analyzing these tests. But seeing the presentations, I doubt that.

    WDYT

    • Job001

      Reproducibility and control are engineering issues already having been dealt with(partially/mostly) by at minimum BLP(bought out?), Rossi, Brillouin, and others, IMHO.

  • Bob

    Gee, and it only took 25 years. That was quick. (not)
    Better late than never I suppose.

    • Job001

      Compare 5 years of honest research to 50 years of Hot fusion dishonest(“energy(not) for the people”)/zero results. If it’s for big business or war, it’s not for humanity but for the overlords.

      Most likely however, the IP will be bought and shelved or regulated(no UL certification for home LENR, just for utilities(big business/military)) out of the public sphere as 80 MPG diesels are only elsewhere(EU), not the USA.

      • AlainCo

        I respect hot fusion, because like LENR an unexpected breakthrough could make it work (there have been many surprises recently, far from tokamak).

        The problem if I analysie it in Nassim Nichola Taleb Antifragility framework, is that LENR and HF have very different risk profile.

        HF need huge investment, with less apparent risk, but many blackswan can (and have) slow down the engineering of that solution. It is not a cheap option to make trial and test…

        LENR is the opposite. even if expensive for a lab, for a country it is a very cheap option, and in a way many many many options… each transition metal, heach hydrogen isotope, each kind of protocol, each metallic treatment, is easy to test, is cheap to test, and may, by surprise give a huge breakthrough…
        Edisonian method, trial and error, which taleb present as the best method, is perfectly adapted to LENR, and it worked.

        Theory and scientific planning just slowed down LENR.
        It put LENR in a dark fringe zone.
        It put Miley and Piantelli in a dark corner of that dark zone and fringer among the fringe.
        It pushed Toyota to restrict the work of Fleischmann in France, as he expressed to some (forget where it is reported).
        Theory is used today to reject facts of LENR.
        Planning of science make the failure of theory, and the collective denial, able to nearly block LENR, to forbide young blood to join.

        Theory and scientific planning only slowed LENR. Not totally because there are place where planning and rationality is not respected, where research is done by engineers and garage inventors.

        Finally a loose but stubborn edisonian engineer, not even understanding QM perfectly, did the job.
        And his work inspire a gang of desperate engineer, who again read the experiments as lessons of what not to do, and found something else that work better.

        I’m afraid that Blacklight and Brillouin with their theory will get slower, or miss the real thing, blinded by planning and wrong anticipation.

        Like Thomas Kuhn explain LENR being rejected by science, Taleb explain why hot fusion have failed, and why engineers have discovered the LENR+.
        Roland Benabou just close the story by explaining why the mainstream community cannot see the evidence…

        • Stefan

          We have not put in enough money on this field, that’s the reason why theory and planning does not lead anywhere. It is true that it slows down the path of science a bit, but considering the randomness of the traditional Electrochemical LENR phenomena, I would be careful to avoid planning.

          The problem is the stigma, and the not so rational reason when it comes to value the evidence of LENR, constantly pushing the limit what proof is needed.

          The first fact to look at is the result that F&P got, the curve is really amazing and shows some really interesting phenomena, ok, let’s be scientific and try to reproduce, well some got a reproduction and most did not, did people really take into account and try to evaluate if this could be a case of some varying unknown factor. No, the descition was that it could not have been an effect but due to some mysterious mistake that get reproduced by some scientists. And so it goes no funding, no progress, and no willingness to reassess
          the facts due very much to the initial tests done when we really didn’t know much.

          Also follow the money, we are usually instinctively referring to the full body of LENR science. A good reading suggestion would be welcomed to point at the more impressive works, where they actually performed in the order of 100 succesfull? tests and get a pretty good knowledge of the phenomena, then the lucky ones, doing one test and hit a gold coin, would not pollute the impression.

          • Job001

            Interesting thing about Government and military money is that it sometimes condemns work like Hot Fusion to NEVER succeed. Usually, it’s private effort and money that will succeed.
            Maybe nobody gets off the only gravy train willingly. The hot fusion guys should support LENR+ because it’s the only NEW energy and fundamental physics research in a long time, get busy boys – fund it, do it!

            Really, it’s also good for mankind for a change, rather than war and corruption, a little fresh air would smell so good for a change.

        • Roger Bird

          AlainCo, I know that you have a lot of good things to say, but I am missing a lot of it. I am not talking about your translating from French to English. I already know that. But I see a lot of typos in your messages that have nothing to do with translating from French to English. I wish that you would reread your comments before you post them so that the rest of us can benefit. I reread my comments. I reread and corrected this comment twice. And I am not translating from French to English. Please.

          • Bob

            I can understand the problem. I re-read my comments before I post them, sometimes twice, and very carefully, and then post it.
            For some reason, the glaring error which jumps out and smacks me in the face when I read the post after posting it, was completely invisible when I read it before posting. And on my computer the edit function always ends in random results so I don’t use it.

            They are all sorts of errors from simple spelling errors, ( I can spell but I think one of my fingers might be dyslectic), to errors of composition and errors of logical explanation. And my native language is english.
            If I was posting in another language I’m sure it would be 10 times worse.
            Fortunately, english is a very robust language and you can make a complete hash of it and still get your meaning across.
            I think Alainco does a pretty good job and I’ve read much worse from people who are supposed to be native english speaking.
            I would hate to think some people were discouraged from posting just because they were scared of framing it in a way which was not aesthetically pleasing to a more critical reader.
            Go for it guys! Give him your worst. 🙂

            • Roger Bird

              AlainCo, I hope that you read this. I care deeply for your feelings and intrinsic worth and I hope that you stay here and continue to comment. I am just asking that I be able to understand you. I am like Bob; I will read this little short message once over, at least.

      • Roger Bird

        Job001, it is much easier to build in one’s home an LENR+ than it would be to build an 80 mpg diesel.

      • GreenWin

        The US Congress is investigating funding for ITER with an eye to nixing it or part of it. The politicians are catching on to the massive boondoggle organized science has been in the US and they are feeling the heat (possibly from the Cat.)

  • LENR.FTW

    Reposting my last comment as it’s more appropriate for this thread:

    LENR.FTW on June 5, 2013 at 11:13 am
    I updated “Are Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Devices Real?” to reflect the experimental results and conclusions presented by SRI, ENEA, SKINR and NRL at the European Parliament conference.

    The case for LENR just got stronger. LENR+ too. They report maximum COPs in some of the experiments well into LENR+ territory, including 25 and 40. Hopefully some more details will come out. I wonder if maximum COP means some instantaneous reading or if that’s the overall COP for the experiment. If it’s the latter, WOW.

    Comments welcome.

    https://sites.google.com/site/lenrforthewin/updates/updatedlenr-sciencearelenrdevicesreal